Rachel Bringer

Last night, Rep. Rachel Bringer (D-Palmyra) warned that the secretive, undemocratic manner in which House Republicans crafted their budget would set up a floor debate with ridiculous false choices, because so much of the federal stimulus money was taken off the table by Chairman Allen Icet, and because the House rules require any spending increases to be paired with corresponding cuts.

Bringer was right. An enormous amount of time today has been spent debating amendments to restore GOP-imposed cuts to thousands of meals on wheels for seniors by cutting legislative liaison positions. Two weeks ago, Republicans slashed the funding.  Last week, they heard from angry seniors and families.  And this week, they want credit for restoring the money they had intended to cut.

To do it, they force Democrats to make a choice between Meals on Wheels and state agencies' legislative liaisons -- the people that represent citizens who can't afford to hire their own lobbyists.

Of course, Republicans never had a problem with legislative liaisons when Matt Blunt was governor, but that sort of intellectual honesty isn't important right now.

Good: Missouri's hospitals and Gov. Nixon announced a plan to provide health care for almost 35,000 uninsured residents -- at no cost to the state.

• Hospitals agreed to increase their tax payments to qualify for more federal Medicaid money, allowing 34,800 currently uninsured Missourians to receive coverage.
• The plan would cost the state zero dollars.
• The hospitals are on board because it will save them money in the long run. The president of the Hospital Association says the proposal is "an opportunity we can't afford to miss."
• The Post-Dispatch says the plan is "good for poor, uninsured parents [and] it helps to create jobs."

Bad: Predictably, GOP leaders lined up against the health care plan.

• Why? Because, um, the hospitals don't like it, there are still other uninsured people, it costs the state money, it makes them look bad.
• GOP Budget Chair Allen Icet was really annoyed with Rep. Rachel Bringer for sponsoring an amendment to enact the plan. So like any mature adult, he decided that pettiness was the best response. 

Budget Chair Allen Icet (R-Wildwood) is in a grumpy mood.  I guess I would be too if I'd been called out for making all sorts of bogus budget promises and making ridiculously lame excuses for denying health care to struggling families.

So logically, Icet took out his frustration on other legislators:

Two noncontroversial bills from Rep. Rachel Bringer, D-Palmyra, didn’t get heard Tuesday night in the House Rules Committee, even though the bills were on the schedule.

Bringer said it’s because of the amendment she sponsored that morning that would codify Gov. Jay Nixon’s latest health care proposal.

Budget Chairman Allen Icet said he wouldn’t consider her amendment, which would allow hospital providers to pay a higher rate, until he heard from the providers. But when their lobbyist showed up, Icet didn’t speak to him.

Bringer said she heard from other Democrats, including Minority Floor Leader Paul LeVota, and ranking Rules Committee Democrat Mike Talboy, that because of the amendment, the Rules Committee will kill her bills until Icet  and other Republican leaders say differently.

­­The response­ to our call for Heart Warming Service Awards nominations was fabulous --the voting was fast and furious in a lot of categories, and it was a lot of fun to watch the ballots pour in.

Here are your winners! ­

Most Admired Senator:
Winner: Sen. Jolie Justus (D-Kansas City)
Most Admired House Member:
Winner: ­Rep. Beth Low (D-Kansas City)	First Runner Up: Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford (D-St. Louis)
Best Boss (staffer's selection):
­­Co-Winner: Rep. Rachel Storch (D-St. Louis)	Co-Winner: Sen. Wes Shoemyer (D-Clarence)
Most Winning Smile:
­Winner: Sen. Ryan McKenna (D-Crystal City)
Most Creative Facial Hair:	Best Hair:
Winner: Sen. Frank Barnitz (D-Lake Spring)	­Winner: Sen. Kevin Engler (R-Farmington)
Most Attention-Getting Neckwear:
­Co-Winner: Sen. Jane Cunningham (R-Chesterfield)	Co-Winner: Sen. Chuck Purgason (R-Caulfield)
Best Advocate for Education:	Best Advocate for Health Care:
Winner Rep. Sara Lampe (D-Springfield)	Winner: Rep. Rebecca McClanahan (D-Kirksville)
Best Role Model for Our Kids:
Winner:­ Rep. Rachel Bringer (D-Palmyra)

Thanks to everyone who participated!

­

Event:  Runs from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. with speaking between 2-3 p.m.

Governor Blunt's recent proposal might be popular with DC-based anti-education special interest groups, but it sure isn't generating much enthusiasm from Missourians.  Here is  a representative sample of reactions from Missouri school officials and other interested citizens:

“I think it takes away from local control.” – Sid Doerhoff, Superintendent, St. Elizabeth R-4 (News Tribune, 11/6/05).

“Each part of the school functions in its own way. You can’t hurt one to help another – you have to stay balanced.” – Toni Westbrooks, Administrator, High Point R-3 (News Tribune, 11/6/05).

“When you raise one number, it stands to reason that you’re going to have to reduce another number in order for the numbers to balance out. So, where do we decrease from?” – Toni Westbrooks, Administrator, High Point R-3 (News Tribune, 11/6/05).

“A couple of those are directly related to being able to provide instructional quality and an instructional program. Transportation is essential to getting students to and from school. I happen to believe that students need counseling services. They need certified librarians. So, I’ve got a lot of questions.” – Bert Kimble, Superintendent, Jefferson City School District (News Tribune, 11/6/05).

“What, specifically, is considered outside-the-classroom items and how do they determine that those outside-the-classroom items have no impact on student achievement/learning? I think it’s better called the 65 percent illusion.” –C.J. Huff, Superintendent, Eldon R-1 (News Tribune, 11/6/05).

“Where do you draw the line between what is classroom instruction, what is administration? This proposal treats those issues as if they are unimportant, which they are not. Just because they may be labeled as administrative doesn’t mean they’re not critical to the success of a school district.” – Brent Ghan, Spokesman, Missouri School Board Association (AP, 11/3/05).

“We do have concerns in general about having something that says each school district has to do exactly the same thing.” – Gary Sharpe, Executive Director, Missouri Council of School Administrators.

“Once more, the state and politicians are out to run the local schools over their boards.” – John Martin, Superintendent, Grandview (Kansas City Star, 11/4/05).

“If those are not included in that 65 percent, what does that say about those services?” – Jim Hinson, Superintendent, Independence, regarding early childhood programs (Kansas City Star, 11/4/05).

“We have 524 school districts, with enrollments ranging from 42,000 to 30.  They look radically different and have radically different needs. It’s not good to try to sledgehammer in a one-size-fits-all policy. School boards, principals, teachers and parents know best how to allocate resources, not extreme interest groups with big agendas from other parts of the country.” –Otto Fajen, Legislative Director, Missouri National Education Association (Kansas City Star, 11/4/05).

“Until there is new money in education, the problems are not going to be solved.” – Alex Bartlett, Attorney (Post-Dispatch, 11/4/05).

“This is a guise under which the governor will say that more money is going to classrooms, but in actuality, the state will be giving less money to school districts. He’s behind a new state foundation formula that doesn’t take effect for 10 years.” – Jack Cardetti, Missouri Democratic Party (Post-Dispatch,
11/4/05).

“Our district gets only 5 percent in state funds, and the stat is interested in telling us how to spend all the funds.” – Hugh Kinney, Superintendent, Pattonville (Post-Dispatch, 11/4/05).

“The implication of this proposal seems to be all these other things are somehow wasteful and unimportant and that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Just because it is not directly spent in the classroom doesn’t mean that it does not affect and help kids with their education.” – Brent Ghan, Spokesman, Missouri School Boards Association (Post-Dispatch, 11/4/05).

Springfield Public Schools spent 61.47 percent on instruction...But that figure doesn't account for the rising costs of fueling up buses and heating and cooling classrooms. “If (Blunt is) saying those don't directly affect the classroom, I have a real problem with that.”– Bruce Renner, Member, Springfield Board of Education (Springfield News-Leader, 11/04/05).

“It seems to me to be another attempt to take local control away from the patrons of our school district. I hope that this isn't a smokescreen that'sbeing thrown up by the governor to take away from the fact that we still do not feel that we are receiving adequate funding from the state.” – Kris Callen, Vice President, Springfield Board of Education (Springfield News-Leader, 11/04/05).

Read More »

Posted: Thursday, Apr 14, 2005 - 01:00:41 am CDT

Lawmakers defeat cut to their own health care

By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press Writer

Missouri House members, who just last week voted to cut government health care for the poor, narrowly rejected a budget amendment Wednesday aimed at cutting their own health care program.

The 78-75 defeat, although it affected just $281,602 in a $19.1 billion proposed budget, provided a poignant moment in this year's legislative session - highlighting the passion and politics surrounding Gov. Matt Blunt's proposed cuts to Missouri's Medicaid program for the poor.